It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent Design Is Just As Valid A Theory As Evolutionism

page: 16
1
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Mmmm....Two pages in and not one person has answer my question.

Just skirted the issue.

Can somebody just tell me what they believe Intelligent design is about, at its core, and how it isnt "God did it" ?

If it isn't, how does an Intelligent creator differentiate from "God did it"

If it is, how is the ultimate solution of God just making us any way scientific? Is this not philosphy, and mythology?




posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
[Part 1]

Sorry about the delay in posting, Rren and mattison0922. However, I like to make sure I read everything that those who I am debating with post. I am very much impressed with Mattison0922’s ability to read a source, such as the one on transitional fossils in only 24minutes. In fact, I was rather impressed that you yourself could Rren in just over an hour. If I had such an ability to speed read, check the facts of the sources quoted and cross-reference in such a short time it would have made my time studying a lot easier.

I’ll take both of your posts, individually so that you are able to see the bits that apply to you both. It’ll only take a few minutes then for you to read it, the sources and respond.


Mattison0922 I will start with you first.



Please explain in detail how a 5% statistical variation in the beak size of finches, is proof of macroevolution - that is formation of new biological structures, etc.



[1]
In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used).



[2]
A medium sized species of Darwin's finch has evolved a smaller beak to take advantage of different seeds just two decades after the arrival of a larger rival for its original food source. The altered beak size shows that species competing for food can undergo evolutionary change, said Peter Grant of Princeton University…


So do you need me to clear that up for you, or can you read your own article and the one I have linked? It’s relatively straight forward. In fact, the only issue is one of time and how the species has changed so quickly. However, when taken into account the life-span and breeding cycles of birds this is rather understandable.



In fact, the 'theory' states that most species will show little to no evolutionary change throughout their history.


Wasn’t strictly intended to do that. It was intended to explain why every so often, transitional fossils have a rapid split into several sub-species. When taken in context of the sources I’ve already shown and further [3] sources it was meant to enhance our understanding of evolution and not cause the mistakes that it has. However, your interpretation is more-often-than-not the one people incorrectly have used.

However, I do have a few questions for you. Why would the homeobox gene be included in so many species? If species have been intelligently designed than why would any change need to happen? Surely, this designer if so intelligent to create a whole universe and species, would be able to make sure they are all working in harmony?



The science community as a whole does this.


I never said they didn’t. In fact, if you spent more than 24minutes reading my post, sources and constructing your own post you would have noted something. I posted a link [4] to the National Science Teachers Association.



Courts DO NOT decide what is and what isn't science.


One thing Courts do, do though is to allow two groups of people with differing views a forum to debate. They provide evidence, they then are allowed to counter each piece of evidence and then finally a Judge or Jury are able to decide what should happen. Surely, if the most educated supporters of Intelligent Design can not convince a judge and/or jury that it is science, what hope does a teacher have in School?

Rren, I’ll now move on to you.

The first main article, The Double Standard for Intelligent Design and Testability is rather interesting. However, its argument is based on a critique of the “multi-verse” hypothesis. However, one major flaw exists with this. Even if there is only 1 in 100-billion chance of life, we have no idea how many star systems are actually in our own galaxy or the actual true size of it. To rule something out, on the basis of probability is flawed. What is my chances of winning the lottery? I can still win it. Why should our planet be any different?

More interestingly though, further reading through your source gives us this gem:

[5]
It’s true that there’s no way to falsify the bare assertion that a cosmic designer exists.


Now. If you read the rest of the article, it does go on to claim due to the nature of certain systems being so complex than logically there must have been a designer. To those, who have only limited understanding of all the theories of evolution this probably holds true. However, when you do look into things like Punctured Equilibrium and several others and begin to accept they do work together, the picture changes.

However, I do have a question for you:
How should we teach intelligent design? It involves, the process of a creator. None of us can honestly deny it. So then, whose version of a designer do we take or should we use any? Is this designer good, evil, neutral?

Your source, Is Intelligent Design Testable? is rather interesting. However, its arguments work on the assumption that complex life forms can not be shown to evolve naturally. Yet, it has not shown otherwise and various people have shown that through simple systems such as radiation flies can develop fully functional limbs where they had none. To argue that a limb isn’t complex, to argue that the changes shown in the Finches isn’t complex is one of complete ignorance. For a species to change, so that it no longer competes with another species is a complex change and a complex system.

Furthermore, just because we can’t show every single complex system having a pathway from previous forms to present is no reason to criticise evolution. The whole basis of science, is a hypothesis is set down, it is tested and then repeatedly tested. Eventually, there will be a definite answer on if complex biological organisms can just begin to exist but to refuse to see the complex organisms which have changed and the transitional fossils of horses, showing several million years worth of change as coincidence or non-existent is no more than burying your head in the sand.

Furthermore, what is the hypothesis of intelligent design?

The rest of that article, is nothing more than a critique of Darwinism. He hasn’t shown how Intelligent Design can be tested or is tested. In fact, at one point in names several theorists to then say:


I'm not enlisting these individuals as design advocates


Furthermore, the whole argument that evolution is wrong because we don’t know something yet is flawed. To argue such a thing we would have to claim that humans have reached the peak of understanding. However, since many areas of science and technology are still expanding this can’t be displayed. But, I do understand why design advocates get irate about the lack of full knowledge. But then, Intelligent Design has been about since Plato’s days and evolution is a relatively new area of science comparatively.

The author himself states, science predicts things. So where are the predictions from intelligent design?

I’ll now move on to the link: Philosophical Objections to Intelligent Design: Response to Critics.

This article, itself is very much like the other you posted. It is a whole lot of nothing. I don’t mean to be rude, but the author of these articles does nothing more than make a claim and never back it up. Some good examples of the stupidity of this author can be found in quotes like this:


One can’t say both that ID is unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable.


Just because something isn’t testable, doesn’t mean there can’t be evidence against it. In fact, the first article says Darwinism isn’t testable and then goes on to show evidence against it. His own double standard ruins both articles and the credibility of them both. Furthermore, to base his whole argument around bacterial flagellum speaks volumes. If, this is such a complex organism than surely, surely the simple answer from evolutionists is one of; It doesn’t need to change? Bacteria work on such a scale, that they rapidly produce and it could have taken billions of years for such a complex organism to suddenly spawn but once it does and it reproduces it would never need to adapt due to the state of perfection it has achieved. If aspects of it, could change than well it’s level of complexity is brought into doubt.

I don’t mean to be rude. But the majority of your sources, conflict each other. Even those written by the same author, use sensationalist styles and shocking titles but then deliver very little substance after page, after page of information. Those of us, who were in University would have never got through the first essay if all we ever did was make accusations and critiques but then not show an alternative. I would very much like to see, these tests which display Intelligent Design as science and by science I mean:


Observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories.


Please, show us them.

Continued.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   
The rest of your sources, such as those on the Case No. 04cv2688 are very much the opinions of the author. However, since you are so interested in referencing Ken Miller’s work and this case I would reference the ruling for all of you:


They are: (1) ID
violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.


Your own source, does not refute these. It makes opinions about them and even goes on to say things such as:


Theory A picked the wrong arguments to give against Theory B.


So the scientific brains who support Intelligent Design, couldn’t even realise which aspects of the theory they should use against evolutionists? If they can’t even work out which ones disprove evolution, then what hope does it have for teaching? Then going on to claim, that certain Newtonian Physics are taught in School even though they are proven wrong - that’s actually false. The only Newtonian Physics taught are those which have been proven as correct or at least, they were when I went to School. The ones which are false are taught at higher levels of education where people choose to study [University] but then so is Intelligent Design.

I am not sure, if this is your usual tactic Rren. But from what I have seen, you have a policy of taking extraordinarily large sources and then linking them. You take one tiny aspect of it and use this in the hope, nobody will read your sources which in many cases are several thousand words and more. I can only assume, it is in the hope nobody will read it because it offers nothing.

I’ll make it simple. You have no idea who this designer is. You have no hypothesis. No example experiments. No example conclusions. All that exists, is a critique of evolution and most of this is based around incorrect assumptions. Your sources try to paint a picture of evolution as static, that there isn’t more than one theory inter-woven with it but this is incorrect.

Until you can display Intelligent Design, fitting the scientific method, with experiments it should not be taught as a science. It is a philosophical idea, that things are too complex to exist without a designer especially when the whole class would get involved in the debate of who is the designer and so on and so fourth.

Yet, I leave with one question:
Who designed the designer?

[1] www.talkorigins.org...
[2] blog.abovetopsecret.com...
[3] www.stephenjaygould.org...
[4] www.nsta.org...&psid=10
[5] www.evolutionnews.org...

The End



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Sorry about the delay in posting, Rren and mattison0922. However, I like to make sure I read everything that those who I am debating with post. I am very much impressed with Mattison0922’s ability to read a source, such as the one on transitional fossils in only 24minutes.


Ummm... first of all, I never claimed to have read your source re: transitional fossils, and will fully admit to not having read it. Though I don't see how this is relevant, since I didn't present any issues with transitional fossils; I specifically addressed Darwin's finches. How does my not having read your source re: transitional fossils affect my ability to evaluate something else - Grant's work with Darwin's Finches, that I am intimately familiar with?


So do you need me to clear that up for you, or can you read your own article and the one I have linked? It’s relatively straight forward. In fact, the only issue is one of time and how the species has changed so quickly. However, when taken into account the life-span and breeding cycles of birds this is rather understandable.

The only issue is time? Okay so you're comfortable extrapolating a 5% variation around a statistical average to also indicate that bacteria can evolve to multicellular organisms, I personally am not.

In any case, I did read the Grant article, many times. Furthermore, I read it in the context of all the research he's performed over the last few decades. What I see is a trend where populations of beak sizes fluctuate in response to selective pressure. The beak sizes haven't changed, there is a statistical leaning towards smaller or larger beak size dependent on selective pressure. The beaks, as I pointed out in my blog article fluctuate around a statistical mean, that is sometimes, on average they're bigger sometimes they're smaller depending on the selective pressure. But the big picture seems to represent statsis, that is the beaks stay about the same size, but some sizes are better represented than others during particular selective events.

This is in no way evidence for macro evolution as it is colloquially used.

Furthermore, this statistical variance, as I pointed out in my blog, falls well within the models offered by YECist's and OECist's. If you want to call it evidence for the evolutionary model, then YEC and OEC crowds are entitled to see it as evidence in support of their models.

I am not sure why the time is such an issue. It seems pretty clear cut: a variation (larger beak size) already present in the population was selected for by a particular event; in the most recent case introduction of a competitor. The variation caused less of the smaller beaked offspring to survive. No change has occured, with the exception of a change in which alleles predominate. No new alleles have been created, no new traits introduced. The population has been shuffled certainly, but providing evidence for macro-evolution... hardly.


Wasn’t strictly intended to do that. It was intended to explain why every so often, transitional fossils have a rapid split into several sub-species. When taken in context of the sources I’ve already shown and further [3] sources it was meant to enhance our understanding of evolution and not cause the mistakes that it has. However, your interpretation is more-often-than-not the one people incorrectly have used.

Right, it was an attempt to explain why the fossil record wasn't producing the predicted transitions.

As Gould states here: "I . . . argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record – geologically ‘sudden’ origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) – reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record.” Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” in Science and Creationism, ed. Ashley Montagu, 123 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984).


However, I do have a few questions for you. Why would the homeobox gene be included in so many species? If species have been intelligently designed than why would any change need to happen? Surely, this designer if so intelligent to create a whole universe and species, would be able to make sure they are all working in harmony?

These are not ID questions, they're philsophy questions.

Why would so many car manufacturers include an ignition switch? Why would so many varieties of boats use sails?

Change needs to happen, because change is an inevitable part of life, climates change, landscapes change, intelligently designed things need to adapt.

You think it makes more sense to design things for only currently relevant circumstances? I disagree. Intelligently designed species must be able to adapt to new and changing surroundings. But again this is philosophy.

And in response to the final philosophical question in that barrage, who says organisms aren't working in harmony? Your perception of the situation is your perception of the situation. If there is an IDer, we have no concept of their big picture, and hence we have no idea re: the level of intended harmony.



I never said they didn’t. In fact, if you spent more than 24minutes reading my post, sources and constructing your own post you would have noted something. I posted a link [4] to the National Science Teachers Association.

Then why cite a court case as determining what is and what isn't science.

Your post didn't take 24 minutes to read... maybe half that time.



Courts DO NOT decide what is and what isn't science.



One thing Courts do, do though is to allow two groups of people with differing views a forum to debate. They provide evidence, they then are allowed to counter each piece of evidence and then finally a Judge or Jury are able to decide what should happen. Surely, if the most educated supporters of Intelligent Design can not convince a judge and/or jury that it is science, what hope does a teacher have in School?

Firstly this isn't about school. It's about scientific freedom. My opinions re: the teaching of ID in schools are well known, and I won't comment on them here.

Judges, etc. can and often do have agendas. I believe Rren has already posted some links to the court transcripts indicating some degree of legal hanky panky occured on the prosecutors part, but was not called by the defendants lawyer.

The courts also couldn't be convinced that OJ is a murderer, therefore, I don't let the courts do my thinking for me.


[edit on 16-8-2006 by mattison0922]

[edit on 16-8-2006 by mattison0922]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922
These are not ID questions, they're philsophy questions.
[edit on 16-8-2006 by mattison0922]


But intelligent design is solely about the theory that the universe, and creatures, are made by an intelligent creator, I.e. God.

How is that NOT relevant to ID? Is this not the fundamental issue of ID?



Why would so many car manufacturers include an ignition switch? Why would so many varieties of boats use sails?


Humans are faulty, primitive, and imperfect. An Intelligent, omnipotent being with the power to create a universe and all life down to insignificant details would not make mistakes, right? after all, if he did, and had that power, it would not be that intelligent of a designer.


Change needs to happen, because change is an inevitable part of life, climates change, landscapes change, intelligently designed things need to adapt.


So.....they evolve?


You think it makes more sense to design things for only currently relevant circumstances? I disagree. Intelligently designed species must be able to adapt to new and changing surroundings. But again this is philosophy.


I thought they dont adapt. After all, the universe and creatures are FAR to complex to adapt by themselves, isnt that a basis of Intelligent Design?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   
One thing though, GOD ISN'T A SCIENCE!!!!!

Sorry, ID=God, God Does NOT = Science, therefor ID Does NOT Equal Science!

Teaching ID as a science is like teaching sneezes are caused by the soul trying to escape. Neither of these are science, based on faith/religon/God/Goddess, and therefor can have no theory about them.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
But intelligent design is solely about the theory that the universe, and creatures, are made by an intelligent creator, I.e. God.

Nope. God never enters the explanation until uninformed people such as yourself put it there.


How is that NOT relevant to ID? Is this not the fundamental issue of ID?

Because as I've pointed out mulitple times in this thread, God has nothing to do with science of ID.

Hey Wolf, guess what despite your best efforts to try to make it so, God has nothing to do with ID.



Humans are faulty, primitive, and imperfect. An Intelligent, omnipotent being with the power to create a universe and all life down to insignificant details would not make mistakes, right? after all, if he did, and had that power, it would not be that intelligent of a designer.






So.....they evolve?

I thought they dont adapt. After all, the universe and creatures are FAR to complex to adapt by themselves, isnt that a basis of Intelligent Design?


And here we have it everything you don't know, never read, and thus don't understand about ID summed up in less than a paragraph.

Duh.

No, adaptation and, depending on your personal perspective, common descent are not excluded by ID.

I'll bet you didn't know that Mike Behe supports the common descent of apes and man, IOW, Mike Behe accepts the mainstream explanation offered by science for the origins of the human species.

Nothing in ID precludes adaptation. Something you'd know if you'd read even a shred of ID.

Do you see what I mean about being familiar with the things you're trying to refute?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Well help me understand this.

Intelligent Design is the belief that the universe and life itself was created by an Intelligent being above our level of comprehension.

Thats the basis, correct.

So...The being that designed it, intelligently, is an Intelligent Designer.

How does the Intelligent Designer have nothing to do with the theory of Intelligent Design, if the entire theory of Intelligent Design is solely about the design from a superior Intelligence?

Please, explain this to me.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Aiyaeyaeyae

:bnghd:


Originally posted by WolfofWar
Intelligent Design is the belief that the universe and life itself was created by an Intelligent being above our level of comprehension.

Thats the basis, correct.


No. One more time: ID is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence.


How does the Intelligent Designer have nothing to do with the theory of Intelligent Design,

ID is about trying to detect design, not about the designer. Evidence for or against design is where the argument ends.


if the entire theory of Intelligent Design is solely about the design from a superior Intelligence?

It has nothing to do with 'superior' intelligence, 'inferior' intelligence.

Here is a general rule, when you're thinking about ID, and you start wondering about the designer, you're no longer thinking about ID.

Design is simply another basis by which to formulate hypotheses. Sometimes the predictions will coincide with ToE, other times it will not.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

No. One more time: ID is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence.


So its about having been designed by a being of intelligence beyond us.

So...Its like a Raelien thing, then, right?

Aliens are intelligent...perhaps they made us?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Wait, so ID isn't about an Intelligent Designer it is about an Intelligent Designer? You do know ID is called ID after an Intelligent Designer. No Intelligent Designer no ID. SO how is ID not about an Intelligent Designer when it's right in the name?

Sarcasm time

Or maybe really smart dinosaurs made us! But then the meteor struck... No, we would have died to.

Maybe it was really advanced pond scum that created us! Then we grew to powerful and took control away from the pond scum. Right now it sits in ponds everywhere plotting revenge on it's children for betraying it...


Makes more sense then God anyways because I can prove Pond Scum and Dinosaurs.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I believe that the intelligence of nature created us with the ability to evolve and adapt to any given enviroment as a survival mentality to overcome increasingly hostile locales and habitats.

Its called evolution.

And it was intelligently designed by natures will to survive.


And on the other side.

Mattison believes in Raeliens



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
So its about having been designed by a being of intelligence beyond us.

So...Its like a Raelien thing, then, right?

Aliens are intelligent...perhaps they made us?


Wow... I had no idea this would be so difficult for you.

You insist on ascribing this intelligence with some attribute; IOW, you're still not thinking about ID.

In any case, yes... what the Raelians believe would fall under the broad heading of ID.

And no... I don't subscribe to the Raelian doctrines... though it was a nice effort at a joke. Ironically, the only time you've not made a serious comment about ID is the only time you were correct about it. Your joke about the Raelians is factually correct, which makes it not funny.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

Originally posted by WolfofWar
So its about having been designed by a being of intelligence beyond us.

So...Its like a Raelien thing, then, right?

Aliens are intelligent...perhaps they made us?


Wow... I had no idea this would be so difficult for you.

You insist on ascribing this intelligence with some attribute; IOW, you're still not thinking about ID.

In any case, yes... what the Raelians believe would fall under the broad heading of ID.

And no... I don't subscribe to the Raelian doctrines... though it was a nice effort at a joke. Ironically, the only time you've not made a serious comment about ID is the only time you were correct about it. Your joke about the Raelians is factually correct, which makes it not funny.


Wait, so his saying Raelians, not God, are the ID was factual. Why? WHat is the difference between calling the ID God or Raelians? You make no sense.

"Evolution disproves God! That's why we have ID!"

So the ID is God?

"No!"

"Then ID doesn't have an ID even though it is named after an ID?"

"Uh, uh, you don't understand!"

So the ID is not God but Raelians?

"That's true but you made it as a joke so you don't understand!"

Wait, so the ID can't be called God but anything else is ok?

"Next Post..."



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922


Wow... I had no idea this would be so difficult for you.

You insist on ascribing this intelligence with some attribute; IOW, you're still not thinking about ID.

In any case, yes... what the Raelians believe would fall under the broad heading of ID.

And no... I don't subscribe to the Raelian doctrines... though it was a nice effort at a joke. Ironically, the only time you've not made a serious comment about ID is the only time you were correct about it. Your joke about the Raelians is factually correct, which makes it not funny.


I am thinkin ID, I dont think YOUR thinking ID

If you are going to state that the world, and us, are intelligently designed, do we not need to know what the designer is? After all, it could be anything, and with each possibility there would be different circumstances and situations.

Right now, basically, your saying that "everythings Intelligently designed, and we dont know who or what or when or how, but it was, so there, ha ha ha."


So in the end, it is what I said in my very first post.

"God did it."

Except, I guess to be fair, its more of a mad libs type thing, right? fill in the blank?

" did it."



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   
WOW I can't reply to you since I don't have 20 posts yet but...

Again, how can you have inelligent Design without a Designer? How can you have an Armani suit without Armani designing it?

How can you say Evolution disproves God so you have ID, but then say the ID isn't God but ID proves God.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
I am thinkin ID, I dont think YOUR thinking ID

.... right... if that's what you want to think... so be it.


If you are going to state that the world, and us, are intelligently designed,

I've stated nothing like this. I've never claimed anything was intelligently designed. I've not stated that either the world or us were intelligently designed. In fact, I've stated things that stand in opposition to this. For example, I've stated that Mike Behe accepts the common descent of apes and man. IOW a leading proponent of ID doesn't believe 'we' were intelligently designed.


do we not need to know what the designer is?

No, Not if the goal is detecting design.


After all, it could be anything, and with each possibility there would be different circumstances and situations.

And your point is....

If you think it so necessary to determine the id of the designer, then start your own movement.


Right now, basically, your saying that "everythings Intelligently designed, and we dont know who or what or when or how, but it was, so there, ha ha ha."

Nope, I've stated nothing of the sort, and in fact provided examples of things that weren't necessarily intelligently designed.

Surely you must have come across these examples when you read the book.... oh yeah... I forgot you, don't read books.

In any case, examples of things not necessarily IDed would include human beings ('us'), the hemoglobin system, the secIII protein transporter, etc.

So right now you realize the depth and breadth of your ignorance re: this topic is so totally exposed that you can do nothing but flail wildly, making up ridiculous, factually incorrect arguments in a vain effort to save face.

Let me be the first to inform you... it ain't working.


So in the end, it is what I said in my very first post.

"God did it."

Except, I guess to be fair, its more of a mad libs type thing, right? fill in the blank?

" did it."



That's right, you got it.


Boy you must really be something. You can refute ideas without really even understanding them.

You can probably continue to use this tactic during recess, and you'll likely be able to use it to get through Junior High too... but you might have a tougher time when you get to high school. A lot of those kids actually read this kind of stuff.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattison0922

I've stated nothing like this. I've never claimed anything was intelligently designed. I've not stated that either the world or us were intelligently designed. In fact, I've stated things that stand in opposition to this. For example, I've stated that Mike Behe accepts the common descent of apes and man. IOW a leading proponent of ID doesn't believe 'we' were intelligently designed.


So....a LEADING proponent of INTELLIGENT DESIGN doesn't BELIEVE in INTELLIGENT DESIGN

?!?!?!?!?!

ooooookay.





You can probably continue to use this tactic during recess, and you'll likely be able to use it to get through Junior High too... but you might have a tougher time when you get to high school. A lot of those kids actually read this kind of stuff.


Ah, moving straight to personal attacks and insults....looks like I struct a nerve.


[edit on 8-16-2006 by WolfofWar]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by WooHooYoo
WOW I can't reply to you since I don't have 20 posts yet but...

Is this directed towards me?


Again, how can you have inelligent Design without a Designer?

You can't have a design without a designer; it's oxymoronic. You can however study a design without concerning yourself with a designer. It's not really that tough of a concept. Oh yeah... I'm at the O&C at ATS... I forgot: this concept is infinitely difficult to grasp.


How can you have an Armani suit without Armani designing it?

You can't, but you can purchase, wear, etc., an Armani suit without having the slightest notion of who Armani is.


How can you say Evolution disproves God so you have ID, but then say the ID isn't God but ID proves God.

I say nothing of the sort. The only people say evolution disproves God are the fundamentalist materialists like Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers... maybe Ellsberry too. Many evolutionists are perfectly comfortable with evolution and God, Ken Miller, and Christian and a scientist is comfortable with both.

I don't say ID isn't God, I've said that ID concerns itself with the design, not the designer.

Finally, who said ID proves God? I haven't said this Rren hasn't said this, and just so you don't have to read their books - not that you would, they obviously don't fit with your narrow world view, I'll let you know that Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Wells nor any of the other major proponents of ID state this either.

Did you have anything constructive to add, or were just going to continue to rant about your impression of ID that you likely gleaned from Teen Beat



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar

Originally posted by mattison0922

I've stated nothing like this. I've never claimed anything was intelligently designed. I've not stated that either the world or us were intelligently designed. In fact, I've stated things that stand in opposition to this. For example, I've stated that Mike Behe accepts the common descent of apes and man. IOW a leading proponent of ID doesn't believe 'we' were intelligently designed.


So....a LEADING proponent of INTELLIGENT DESIGN doesn't BELIEVE in INTELLIGENT DESIGN

?!?!?!?!?!

ooooookay.

Honestly, are really this dense, or do you just like to play it up?

For the record, again... for the probably the 10000th time in this forum: Mike Behe, a leading proponent of Intelligent Design accepts the common descent of apes and man.

Yes. It's true.

Of course, this is common knowledge, especially among those who actually read. It's really amazing the information that you can obtain from a book. I'd suggest reading one not published by Disney sometime.

With respect to striking a nerve: Please. The fact of the matter is your ignorant about this topic, you refuse to admit it, and you continue to make that ignorance explicit here in this forum. In my opinion, this is juvenile behavior, hence my recess comment.

Now... this is not to say that I am a beacon of good behavior; I'm crass, acerbic, and couldn't care less about niceties, and much of my name calling could most definitely be classified as juvenile and immature, but at least I'm not ignorant.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join